Sex and Gender A Biopsychological

Approach 1st Edition Heidi R. Riggio

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/sex-and-gender-a-biopsychological-approach-1st-editi
on-heidi-r-riggio/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Microbiology: A Systems Approach 7th Edition Marjorie

Cowan & Heidi Smith

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microbiology-a-systems-
approach-7th-edition-marjorie-cowan-heidi-smith/

Paradoxes of Neoliberalism Sex Gender and Possibilities

for Justice Social Justice series 1st Edition
Elizabeth Bernstein & Janet R Jakobsen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/paradoxes-of-neoliberalism-sex-
gender-and-possibilities-for-justice-social-justice-series-1st-
edition-elizabeth-bernstein-janet-r-jakobsen/

A Critical Reflexive Approach to Sex Research 1st

Edition Monique Huysamen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-critical-reflexive-approach-to-
sex-research-1st-edition-monique-huysamen/

What Even Is Gender? 1st Edition R. A. Briggs

https://ebookmeta.com/product/what-even-is-gender-1st-edition-r-
a-briggs/
Shakespeare and Gender Sex and Sexuality in Shakespeare
s Drama 1st Edition Kate Aughterson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/shakespeare-and-gender-sex-and-
sexuality-in-shakespeare-s-drama-1st-edition-kate-aughterson/

Microbiology Fundamentals a clinical approach Fourth

Edition 2022 Kelly Heidi ``Cowan Smith Lusk 4Th

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microbiology-fundamentals-a-
clinical-approach-fourth-edition-2022-kelly-heidi-cowan-smith-
lusk-4th/

Designing and Conducting Gender Sex and Health Research

1st Edition John L Oliffe Lorraine Greaves

https://ebookmeta.com/product/designing-and-conducting-gender-
sex-and-health-research-1st-edition-john-l-oliffe-lorraine-
greaves/

Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine: Sex and Gender-

Specific Biology in the Postgenomic Era 4th Edition
Marianne J. Legato

https://ebookmeta.com/product/principles-of-gender-specific-
medicine-sex-and-gender-specific-biology-in-the-postgenomic-
era-4th-edition-marianne-j-legato/

The Sex of Things Gender and Consumption in Historical

Perspective 1st Edition Victoria De Grazia

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sex-of-things-gender-and-
consumption-in-historical-perspective-1st-edition-victoria-de-
grazia/
i

SEX AND GENDER

Using both scientific and feminist approaches in its analysis, Sex and Gender: A Biopsychological
Approach provides a current and comprehensive understanding of its titular topics, making it an
invaluable textbook for instructors and students.
Sex and gender can only be properly understood when examined in the contexts of bio-
logical, psychological, and social processes and the interactions between those processes. The
structure of this book facilitates this necessary exhaustive discussion:

• First section: a biological analysis that discusses evolutionary, cellular, and genetic processes,
and their effects on physical and behavioral development
• Second section: a psychological and sociological analysis that discusses stereotypes, sexism,
and theories of gender
• Final section: a discussion of the current global challenges surrounding sex and gender, such
as discrimination and religious and social oppression of various groups
• Across chapters: bonus features that can be used as discussion topics, student essay topics, or
special topics for instructors to expand the text’s discussion into the classroom

The text’s unique focus on biological, psychological, and social processes — as separate entities
and interacting processes — makes Sex and Gender crucial for a comprehensive and advanced
understanding of the subject. This is an essential resource for instructors who want to bring a
thorough and complex analysis of sex and gender studies to their classrooms.

Heidi R. Riggio is Professor of Psychology at Cal State LA. She has been teaching in Southern
California since 1996. She is a social psychologist with published research on sibling relation-
ships, parental marital conflict and divorce, relationship attitudes and their strength, sexual
health, religiosity and cognitive biases, and political attitudes.
ii
iii

SEX AND GENDER

A Biopsychological Approach

Heidi R. Riggio
iv

First published 2021

by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Heidi R. Riggio to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​47978-​7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​47979-​4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​04187-​0 (ebk)
Typeset in Interstate Light
by Newgen Publishing UK
Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9780367479794
v

To my students, past, present, and future

To my daughter, Clara
vi
vii

CONTENTS

Preface ix
Acknowledgements xi

1 Human Evolution 1

2 The Cellular Basis of Life 21

3 Genetics 39

4 Human Sexual Reproduction 59

5 Gender Stereotypes 82

6 Theories of Gender 112

7 Global, Historical Sexism 154

8 Human Sexuality 198

9 Personality, Emotions, and Health 251

10 Intimacy and Interpersonal Relationships 297

11 Aggression 344

12 Occupational Roles and Power 389

13 Current Issues and Social Problems 424

Index 459
viii
ix

PREFACE

When I first started teaching at Cal State LA (I won’t reveal how long ago that was), I was asked
to teach a course called Sex & Gender. This course was unique for me, for a few reasons. First,
the course was an upper-​division general education course, with students required to complete
three courses outside their major. Cal State LA’s upper-​division general education was at that
time coordinated around so-​called “themes,” with this course included in Theme C, “Sex in the
Diversity of Human Experience.” So while the course served as an upper-​division elective in
Psychology for Psychology students, it was also open to all majors, with students from many
different majors taking the course. Second, the course was cross-​listed with Biology, with the
course occasionally being taught by Biology faculty. As such, it had substantial biology content,
which had apparently been standardized across instructors because the course was a general
education course (with specific required student learning outcomes). Third, the course was also
unique to me because I had never taught such a course; my teaching up to that point had cen-
tered around Critical Thinking, Social Psychology, Statistics, Introduction to Psychology, and
various Management/​Organizational Psychology courses. I did not consider myself an expert in
biological psychology. When I was asked to teach Sex & Gender, I was initially hesitant for all of
the reasons just listed. I preferred Psychology students and teaching within the major, which felt
somehow safer. Although I had very much enjoyed Biology courses as an undergraduate student,
I did not consider myself an expert in human biology. And, preparing a new course? Who needs
that extra work?
At the same time, I felt challenged. The only person in the Department who had taught the
course previously was retiring; my Department needed me! I could expand my teaching experi-
ence, expand my own knowledge, show my Department what I was made of, and learn some new
stuff. I was also a social psychologist and feminist who was fascinated with and passionate about
issues associated with sexual health and the social-​psychological construction of gender. I was
further challenged when I accepted the course and the chair of the Biology Department emailed,
inquiring as to my abilities to properly teach the course. As a junior faculty member, I was chal-
lenged again to prove myself, by my senior colleagues.
Teaching the course for the first time was challenging, to say the least. Two books for the
course were required; a slim volume on human reproductive biology, and a larger, more expan-
sive textbook focusing on gender from a psychological perspective. The first half of the course
focused entirely on biology, starting with evolution and genetics, up to human reproduction and
pregnancy. I learned right along with the students that first term, and I’ve been learning more
x

x Preface
and more ever since in an attempt to become as expert as possible on the first half of this course.
The second half of the course was much less but still challenging, as I expanded my knowledge
of human sexuality, sexual health and rights, gender differences in behavior, and historical and
modern inequalities around the world. As I continued to teach the course over time, it became a
favorite course to teach. However, over time, I and the students became increasingly frustrated
over the necessity of two texts, and I decided one comprehensive textbook would be a useful tool
in teaching and learning about sex and gender.
I approached writing this book with a fascination for understanding human evolution and
behavior, and a passion for the importance of gender equality, gender freedom, and sexual health
and happiness. I hope you enjoy reading this book as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Heidi R. Riggio
Department of Psychology
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90032 USA
December 12, 2019
newgenprepdf

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my colleagues and friends within Psychology for their superlative support,
kindness, and encouragement over the years. I would like to thank my wonderful students for
their continuing hard work and sharing their talents with me. I would like to thank my daughter,
Clara, for her support and encouragement in everything, including writing every word of this
book. Thank you to my nephew Sam and my niece Sadie for giving me more good reasons for
everything I do. Special thanks to my friend Dr. Brigitte Matthies for her constant presence as a
friend who understands me; and Dr. Brian Johnson for his helping me understand myself. Lots of
love and gratitude, I am truly blessed by the people in my life.
xii
newgenprepdf

1 Human Evolution

The Beginnings of Life on Earth 4

Evolution: Basic Principles, Supporting Evidence 5
Evolution of Human: Hominids and Early Homo Species 8
Modern Human Variation 15
The Evolution Controversy 16

INEQUALITIES AND INJUSTICES

Intimate Partner Violence in the Cave?

Human beings have a violent history. Homicide is a leading cause of premature death
among young adults in the United States (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2010),
and war after war have been fought across time. People fight over territory, possessions,
and people, and violence occurs between people who are in the same family, people we are
supposed to love. Even in the modern, civilized world, with laws prohibiting violence and
law enforcement and courts punishing violence, violence is a major social issue around
the world. If modern humans are so violent, what were ancient humans like? Human skel-
etal remains from fossil remains of campsites and group living areas provide data on the
violent behavior of ancient people. An anthropologist who examined research on ante-
mortem (before death) and perimortem (at death) skeletal injuries among ancient human
remains, Phillip L. Walker (2001), asserts that the human species has always been quite
violent, especially men. Throughout the history of Homo Sapiens, cannibalism was a regu-
lar and widespread practice, and there is plentiful evidence of mass killings and individual
homicides/​assaults across the globe. With humans having a tendency toward aggression
and interpersonal violence, how would this come into play in intimate relationships among
ancient peoples? The average man is much bigger and stronger than the average woman;
this fact alone allows men to control women with violence. In the cave, with no formal laws
and fewer sophisticated ideas on the importance of equality between the sexes, it is clear
that cave men used physical force to control their cave women. Anthropological research
must continue to gather evidence of physical violence used against women as a means of
controlling the other half of the human race, beginning in the cave.
2

2 Human Evolution

LEARN MORE

Early Hominid and Homo Groups

This entire book isn’t long enough to describe every group representing human evolution
over time. There are many other early hominid and early Homo groups that you might be
interested in reading about. Here is a list for you to check out, groups we missed in our
chapter:

Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo georgicus
Homo ergaster
Homo sapiens idaltu

CRITICAL THINKING

Top Ten Myths about Evolution

Top 10 Myths about Evolution (Skeptics Society, 2010)

www.skeptic.com/​downloads/​top-​10-​evolution-​myths.pdf

1. If Humans Came from Apes, Why Aren’t Apes Evolving into Humans?

Human beings and apes evolved from a common ancestor about six to seven million years
ago. Apes are our cousins; we did not evolve from them.

2. There Are Too Many Gaps in the Fossil Record for Evolution to Be True

There are of course gaps in the fossil record; fossils have only been systematically col-
lected for about 200 years. In addition, accurately describing fossil finds takes time. Many
intermediate fossils exist, including interesting creatures like the Tiktaalik, intermediate
between fish and amphibians. Multiple intermediate forms in the evolution of humans have
also been found. As more discoveries are made, the progression of evolution becomes
clearer.

3. If Evolution Happened Gradually over Millions of Years, Why Doesn’t the Fossil Record
Show Gradual Change?
3

Human Evolution 3

Most successful species live for relatively long periods of time. The history of life shows
long periods of stability with little change, with speciational change happening rather rap-
idly. The equilibrium of life is thus punctuated by bursts of change.

4. No One Has Ever Seen Evolution Happen

This is first an appeal to ignorance, a poor argument tactic. Secondly, if there are no
witnesses to an event, that doesn’t mean people cannot figure out what happened. For
example, accident reconstruction specialists determine what happened in traffic accidents
based on evidence at the scene. Crime scene specialists and law enforcement experts rec-
reate crimes, including sequences of events, causes of injuries, even the mindset of per-
petrators. Understanding something from evidence left behind is reasonable and logical;
eyewitnesses are not necessary (and sometimes not all that accurate; Loftus & Palmer,
1996). Finally, independent observations and evidence from every branch of science sup-
port that evolution is a fact. Strong, consistent, and continuing convergence of evidence
strongly supports that evolution is indeed the process by which life evolved on our planet.

5. Science Claims That Evolution Happens by Random Chance

This argument is completely false. Natural selection is not random at all; rather, survival is
determined by individual qualities that enhance ability to survive and reproduce in a par-
ticular environment. There is nothing random about that.

6. Only an Intelligent Designer Could Have Made Something as Complex as an Eye (or
Whatever)

Eyes are actually not well put together. They are in fact upside down and backwards. Among
human beings, about 75% require some vision correction (Vision Council of America, 2017).
The structure and function of eyes across species is very well understood from an evolu-
tionary perspective, with initial primitive light-​sensing cells the precursors to similarly-​
structured eyes across many different species.

7. Evolution Is Only a Theory

This is also a poor argument tactic called a straw person, where a solid argument is
changed into something easily knocked down (“only” a theory). A theory is an explanation;
good theories explain most or all of the known evidence, provide testable hypotheses,
are guided by natural law, and are falsifiable. Evolution is supported by abundant, conver-
ging evidence, and guides new predictions. It is a superior theory, the singular theory that
unites all of science.

8. Evidence for Human Evolution Has Turned out to Be Fake, Fraudulent, or Fanciful

Some “evidence” produced by scientists has indeed turned out to be fake. Piltdown Man,
offered by Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward in England, is an example of a fake.
Honest scientists also make mistakes in research, like the case of Nebraska Man. But fakes
do not define all of science, and mistakes usually turn out to be useful in the progression
of science. Science as a method is designed intentionally to stop fakes and frauds and to
minimize mistakes. Scientific evidence is subject to peer-​review and the greatest scrutiny.
Mistakes often lead to new directions and discoveries, and a few fakes do not undermine
4

4 Human Evolution

the totality of evidence supporting evolution. To claim that one part or one piece invali-
dates an entire body of evidence is a poor argument tactic called the part-​whole fallacy.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics Proves That Evolution Is Impossible

This physical law applies to closed, isolated systems. The Earth is an open system, with
constant energy provided by the sun. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply
to life existing and evolving on Earth, nor to many other processes on Earth.

10. Evolution Can’t Account for Morality

Morality is observed across the animal kingdom. We see love, attachment bonds, relation-
ships, and altruism happening among animals. For example, mothers across species care
for their children, show obvious affection toward them, help them in time of need, and
show great distress when they are missing or injured. Pair bonding of mates across a life-
time is also common. As social species, primates, including humans, show great respect
for social processes such as reciprocity, cooperation, and sharing with others. Evidence of
caretaking and kinship bonds is abundant in the fossil record of hominid groups. Morality
enhances ability of a species to survive because it enhances group bonds, which aids indi-
vidual survival and reproduction. Evolution can and does account for moral behavior in
humans and other animals.

The Beginnings of Life on Earth

The story of the origins of life on our planet is obviously very complicated, and there is much
that scientists still do not know about the origins of life. The universe is said to be over 13
billion years old (Planck Collaboration, 2015), while the Earth is said to be about 4.5 billion
years old (Braterman, 2013). Evidence of early microbial life is found in rocks about 3.5 billion
years old in Western Australia (Noffke, Christian, Wacey, & Hazen, 2013). Microfossils about 4
billion years old have also been found in Canada. Early bacteria are found in rocks in Greenland,
about 3.7 billion years old (Nutman, Mojzsis, & Friend, 1997). Evidence of the most likely begin-
ning of organic life on the planet comes from a series of experiments conducted by Sutherland
(Powner, Gerland, & Sutherland, 2009). The young Earth was covered in oceans, with many
different forms of energy present, including sunlight, lightning, volcanoes, deep-​sea vents, and
meteorites from space. In addition to water, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus,
and carbon were all present, the basic elements of life. Sutherland and colleagues actually cre-
ated ribonucleic acid (RNA), which is essential for protein production in living cells, in their
laboratory. The earliest life was likely prokaryotic bacterial cells (cells without nuclei), such as
the ones found in ancient fossils. Once life existed on Earth, it would not be stopped, and over
billions of years, very slowly, everything alive that has ever existed on the planet and that exists
today evolved from these earlier simpler forms. As every branch of science continues to test
the predictions of evolutionary theory, including modernly, the evidence supporting evolution
continues to mount. Today, the theory of evolution is largely regarded as factual. A theory is an
explanation of a particular phenomenon that provides a testable hypothesis. The explanation of
life provided by the theory of evolution has been supported by numerous observations since its
inception over 150 years ago.
5

Human Evolution 5

Evolution: Basic Principles, Supporting Evidence

Charles Darwin is the English naturalist who first published on evolutionary theory in his fam-
ous book, On the Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859). Darwin had traveled on his ship, The Beagle,
observing various life forms in different types of ecosystems and environments all over the
world. Based on his observations, Darwin concluded that life forms evolved slowly over time to
survive in changing environments. For example, in the Galapagos Islands (an island group about
600 miles off the west coast of South America) he observed various types of finches, all of which
belonged to the same species. The finches all originally flew from the mainland to the Islands.
On some of the islands the birds ate nuts and seeds and lived on the ground. On other islands
the finches ate fruit and lived in trees. On other islands the finches ate insects. Depending on
their main diet, the finches possessed different features, particularly different shaped beaks,
with some beaks better for cracking open seeds and other beaks adapted for drinking nectar
from flowers. All the same species, yet different features had evolved over time, depending on
the environment and food supply on each particular island. Darwin concluded that life forms
changed slowly over time depending on the dynamic, changing environment in which each crea-
ture lived (see Figure 1.1).
Darwin asserted two main premises underlying the process of evolution. First is the idea of
common ancestry, that all life on the planet evolved over time from earlier simpler forms. In
this way, all life on the planet is based on the same essential amino acids, the building blocks
of protein; and adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, a small molecule (a nucleotide) that supports
energy transfer and metabolism at the cellular level. All eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus),
that compose the bodies of nearly 99.9% of the world’s organisms, function in a similar fashion

Large tree finch

(Camarhynchus psittacula)
Medium tree finch
(Camarhynchus pauper)
Small tree finch
Mangrove finch
(Camarhynchus parvulus)
(Camarhynchus heliobates)
Vegetarian finch
(Camarhynchus Mainly
crassirostris) insects Woodpecker finch
Buds
(Camarhynchus pallidus)
and
fruits
Ancestral
seed-eating
Cactus ground Warbler finch
Large cactus finch seeds finch (Certhidea olivacea)
(Geospiza conirostris) and
parts

Cocos Island finch

Cactus finch (Pinaroloxias inornata)
(Geospiza scandens) Mainly
seeds

Sharp-beaked ground finch Small ground finch

(Geospiza difficilis) (Geospiza fuliginosa)

Large ground finch Medium ground finch

(Geospiza magnirostris) (Geospiza fortis)

Figure 1.1 Adaptive radiation in Galapagos finches

Source: © 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
6

6 Human Evolution
as well. These molecular, chemical, and cellular similarities would not exist if all of life was not
interrelated, if all of life did not come from the same early simple life forms. The fact that this
biochemistry and cellular function is identical across all life forms is very strong evidence of
common ancestry.
A second main premise underlying the process of evolution is that of natural selection, the
process by which the natural environment “selects” some species members for survival and
reproduction because they possess qualities that are particularly well-​suited for that environ-
ment. There are four basic elements of the process of natural selection. First is the central idea
of variation, the fact that individual organisms within each species vary widely in their individual
characteristics. For example, the Galapagos finches: within one species many varieties of bird
features existed, including very different shapes of beak. Human beings modernly vary widely
in their features, including height, eye color, skin color, hair type, body type, diseases, and many
other genetic qualities. All species vary widely in their traits and qualities. If all members of a
species were alike, one disease or illness could wipe out the entire species at once. To enhance
survival, to support unstoppable life, species vary widely across many different characteristics.
A second essential element of natural selection is the struggle for existence. It’s not easy
being a zebra, or a fox, or a salmon, or an eagle. The world is dangerous, full of predators and
hazards, and staying alive is not easy. Human beings, although we have altered our world so
much for safety and to preserve life, face literally lethal dangers on a daily basis. It is not easy
to survive. Who among a species is most likely to survive? This is the third element of natural
selection, survival of the fittest. Among any species, there will be individual members who will
possess characteristics that are especially well-​suited to survival in a particular environment.
A finch with a long pointy beak is better able to survive on an island where flowers provide a main
source of food, nectar. A finch of the same species with a short beak may not survive very long on
that particular island. Over time, as the fittest live longer and have more offspring, their adaptive
characteristics become more numerous within the species. This is the fourth essential element
of natural selection, adaptation. An adaptation is any characteristic that enhances the ability of
a species to survive in a particular environment. As the characteristic enhances survival, it also
enhances ability to reproduce, resulting in more species members having adaptive qualities, and
those species members without those qualities not surviving, not reproducing. As such, nature
“selects” for survival those individual species members that possess particularly adaptive char-
acteristics. Over millions of years, within a changing planet, ecosystem, and immediate envir-
onment, the result is many changes in life forms, eventual divergence of species, and a planet
covered in different creatures that are adapted for survival in their environment (see Figure 1.1).
As indicated earlier, there is an abundance of evidence supporting the common ancestry
of life on Earth. First, biogeography, as studied by Darwin himself, supports common ancestry.
Biogeography is the study of plant and animal life as it varies in different environments all over
the world. Dolphins, sharks, squid, and other marine life obviously possess characteristics that
enable them to survive in the ocean. No one would argue that a dolphin could survive in a desert
or a forest. Creatures all over the world possess qualities that enable them to survive in their
particular environment; if the environment changes dramatically and suddenly, the species will
be wiped out. Darwin made the particular observation of the Patagonian hare, a rodent living in
the grasslands of South America (which had no rabbits during Darwin’s time). The hare is quite
similar in many features to rabbits in England, except it is much bigger and is a completely differ-
ent species. Darwin concluded that these completely distinct species, living thousands of miles
7

Human Evolution 7
apart, have similar features because both the hare and the English rabbit live in similar grassland
environments.
Fossil evidence also supports common ancestry and evolution of life on our planet. A fossil is
any remains of past life: bones, shells, pottery, tools, footprints, etc. Scientists date fossils based
on various chemical tests and where they are found in the geologic column. Many extinct spe-
cies and intermediate forms are present in the fossil record. The ancient horse is different from
the modern horse and fossil evidence (dated to a theory-​predicted date within the geologic col-
umn) clearly shows this. Earlier, more primitive versions of many species are present in the fossil
record. Evidence of human evolution is also present in the fossil record, including clear changes
in physical characteristics over time.
Anatomical evidence also supports common ancestry. Many body structures and processes
are similar across species; the structures are homologous. A widely used example is the forelimb
of vertebrate species, which has the same number of bones arranged in highly similar manner
across species (i.e., a bat wing is like a dolphin fin is like a bird wing is like a horse’s front leg is like
the human arm; see Figure 1.2). Fetal development in mammals also follows a similar progression
and morphology across species, as does sexual reproduction across even more species. There is
no particular reason for this similarity; the similarity itself does not enhance survival of species.
Rather, the similarity exists because all of these creatures are descended from the same earlier,
simpler forms. These early structures were modified by natural selection over long periods of
time into their current forms across many species. Animals of all kinds are anatomically and bio-
logically similar because we are all interrelated.
Finally, modern biochemical evidence, unavailable to Darwin in his scholarly work, also sup-
ports common descent. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) exists in every cell of all living things and
composes the genetic code. Genes determine the production of proteins at the cellular level,
which in turn determines how different creatures look and function (we will talk much more

Human Dog Bird Whale

Figure 1.2 Homologous forms among vertebrates

8

8 Human Evolution
about cells and genes in the next chapters). It is clear from research in genetics that all creatures
have very similar genetic codes, with closely related species being more similar genetically than
species less closely related. For example, human beings share about 50% of the same genes
with bananas, but nearly 99% of the same genes with chimpanzees. In fact, genetically humans
and chimpanzees are nearly identical, except chimps have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), while
humans have 46 chromosomes (with 23 pairs). The major difference is that human beings have
one chromosome 2, which appears to be a fused version of two separate chromosomes pos-
sessed by chimps, generally called 2A and 2B (Yunis & Prakash, 1982).
Major genetic differences between humans and chimps relate to body hair, skeletal structure,
and structure of the larynx and mouth (structures relating to speech). This genetic similarity
is actually unnecessary for life to occur. Life on Earth would be supportable with other genetic
codes. The genetic similarity of all life on Earth is very strong evidence of our common ancestry.

Evolution of Human: Hominids and Early Homo Species

A common misperception is that human beings evolved directly from apes (see “Critical Thinking”).
Human beings are closely related to apes, with both having evolved along separate lines from a
common ancestor who existed about 7 million years ago. Apes (including chimpanzees, gorillas,
orangutans) and humans, along with monkeys (including marmosets and baboons) and prosim-
ians (lemurs, tarsiers), are all considered primates (see Figure 1.3). Primates are related to the
first mammals to enter trees, with eventual divergence of larger classes, orders, and families of

Figure 1.3 A timeline of human evolution

Source: Royal Society Publishing
9

Human Evolution 9
creatures. Humans are most closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, a bit less to gorillas, a
bit less to orangutans, and even less to monkeys.
Primates have several characteristics that make them unique in relation to other mammals,
qualities that are particularly adaptive for living in trees. Ancient ancestors of humans originally
lived in trees and we still see qualities well-​suited for that in modern humans. First, part of the
greater reliance on vision of primates relates to the importance of depth perception. Primates
perceive depth better than other creatures because their eyes face forward on a flatter face,
with a shorter snout (due to a decreased reliance on smell over time). Depth is important for
judging distances, including from tree limb to tree limb and from tree to the ground. Second,
primates have mobile limbs and grasping hands, important for moving about, swinging, climbing,
and gripping tree limbs. Our hands are very sensitive and powerful, with shorter claws better and
sensitive fingertips highly adaptive for gripping and climbing. Primates also have large complex
brains, larger than most other mammals. Such brains are important for living in groups, for com-
munication, for movement and balance, and for processing spatial information retrieved from
larger vision areas. A hallmark of human evolution is a trend toward a larger and larger brain,
especially growth in the frontal lobe areas of the brain, which are important for planning, learn-
ing, consciousness and identity, and empathy. Finally, primates have a reduced reproductive rate
relative to other mammals, having usually only one baby at a time. Having a baby is difficult,
but if you’re living in a tree, it can be more difficult and one needs to be able to carry a baby all
the time. Having multiple babies while living in a tree is dangerous and makes one (and babies)
vulnerable to falls, predators, and other mishaps. Having fewer offspring at a time is essential for
successful life in the trees.
Along the path of human evolution, various hominid (meaning “man-​like”) species have been
discovered in the fossil record (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). The most obvious changes that occur over
long periods of human evolution involve brain size (and thus skull size and shape), changes in
brain structures (growth in some structures but not in others, as evidenced by changes in skull
shape), changes in body hair (because the human cooling system relies on perspiration much
more so than other animals), and changes in the facial structures (including the teeth as our diets
became more varied and we began cooking food). All of these changes are actually the result of
the most important change affecting how we evolved: the trend toward and eventual reliance on
bipedalism, walking upright on two feet.
Dramatic climatic changes in Africa during early human evolution would have resulted in
many fewer trees, with forests becoming grasslands over time. This change in the environment
requires more time on the ground, looking for food and traveling from tree to tree. As our early
ancestors spent more time on two feet, there were many advantages to be had: two free hands
(no longer used for movement), being able to view an entire surrounding landscape, and a fast
efficient gait and eventual run. As we began running, not just in sprints but over long distances,
a sophisticated and unique cooling system developed, involving less body hair allowing cooling
of more of the body with watery sweat from eccrine sweat glands (versus panting and oily apo-
crine sweat glands among other mammals). The nose is also large and longer on a flatter face,
better for our cooling system. Freedom of the hands allows carrying and use of tools to a better
degree, resulting in brain growth over time as intelligence and planning become more important
for survival. Planning also involves the frontal lobe areas of the brain, structures rather unique
to human beings. As we evolved we communicated better, also linked with brain growth over
time, especially in language areas of the brain. Communication evolved with changes in mouth
10

10 Human Evolution

Figure 1.4 Evolution of human: skulls

Source: 123RF

structure and tongue size, strength, and flexibility. Bipedalism is the main force behind all of
these gradual, cumulative changes.

Hominids and Early Homo Species

Many different species are represented along the timeline of human evolution; it is not pos-
sible to describe them all in one chapter, so we will discuss a few major players. The oldest
known hominid species documented, which is believed to be a species variation close to the
common ancestor of humans and other primates, is called Sahelenthropus Tchadensis, who
was found in Chad in central Africa in 2002 (see Figure 1.4). Sahelenthropus Tchadensis dates to
between 6 and 7 million years ago (MYA), so she is thought to have existed close to the time of
the divergence between creatures that eventually became chimpanzees and those that eventu-
ally became human. She had a very small brain (about 350cc), and still lived in the trees. It is not
yet known to what degree she was bipedal.
Two important hominid groups that existed are called Australopithecines, or “southern apes.”
The first and oldest is called Australopithecus Afarensis, whose skeletal remains upon discov-
ery (in Ethiopia, 1974) were named “Lucy” by paleontologist Donald Johansen. Afarensis is dated
to about 3.2 to 3.5 MYA, and is thought to have spent more and more time on the ground, due to
declining numbers of trees, but still largely lived in trees, in groups. Afarensis was small, under
11

Human Evolution 11
4 feet tall and only weighing about 70–​80 pounds. She had a small brain (about 400cc), but her
skeletal structure indicates she was indeed bipedal. Additional evidence of bipedalism is found in
footprints found in a lava bed dated to around the same time as Afarensis, about 3.8 MYA, with
footprints from three individuals walking on two feet, side by side.
Afarensis is the ancestor of later Australopithecine groups, including Australopithecus
Africanus. Africanus is about the same size as Lucy, but more recent in our history, dated to
around 2.8 to 2.5 MYA. Africanus also lived in groups, but spent more time on the ground than
Afarensis. About the same size, the brain is slightly bigger, between 440 and 500cc. The first
discovery of Africanus was in a place called Taung in South Africa, in 1924 by Professor Raymond
Dart, who found a small child’s skull. For these reasons, Africanus is sometimes called “Taung
Child.” Africanus used rudimentary tools, such as using unfashioned rocks to break open animal
bones to retrieve the rich, nutritious marrow inside. The Taung Child is thought to have been
killed at about age 3 years by an eagle, because of the talon markings found inside the eye sock-
ets (see Figure 1.5).
Although many early hominid groups, and other primates today, use rudimentary tools in
obtaining food (e.g., chimpanzees use sticks to get bugs out of their nests), a most important leap
in human evolution took place when we got smart enough to actually make tools (i.e., change
a rock or a stick into something else that is useful). The first example of tool making in human
evolution is the creation of the hand axe, or working on, shaping, and sharpening a rock so that
it is more effective as a tool. The first groups identified with the genus Homo have three main

Figure 1.5 Taung child skull

Source: Wiki
12

12 Human Evolution
features: 1) brain size is larger than 600cc; 2) jaw and teeth are similar to modern human teeth;
and 3) tool making is evident.
Many different Homo groups existed simultaneously at different times over the millions of
years of human evolution. Modern humans are not descended from all of them; many of them
died out, became extinct, and their lines went no further. Homo groups are characterized by liv-
ing in large groups, fending off many predators, sometimes changing immediate environments
to find additional food sources. Early Homo groups generally showed very broad subsistence
patterns. Definitely omnivorous, they would eat pretty much anything, including meat, plants,
eggs, insects, fruit, honey, and roots. These broad subsistence patterns are definitely adaptive
across environments, especially in instances of drought. Living in groups is also adaptive, as it
maximizes safety against predators, effective hunting, and likelihood of finding a willing mate.
Group living also allows caretaking of the sick, elderly, and children.
The hand axe is the hallmark of Homo Habilus, literally the “Handy Man.” The first discovery
of Habilus was by the famous married team Louis and Mary Leakey, in the 1960s in Kenya. Habilus
shows the increases in brain growth characteristic of human evolution, with a much larger brain
than Australopithecines (up to about 775cc). Standing between 4 and 5 feet tall, Habilus likely
weighed about 80 pounds. The shape of Homo Habilus’ skull suggests larger speech areas in the
brain, with language communication increasing along with brain size and creation of tools. Homo
Habilus remains have been found along with remains of very large campsites, suggesting Habilus
lived in large groups where communication would be essential for effective functioning of the
group. Evidence also indicates that Habilus was likely not an active hunter, but that meat was
obtained largely through scavenging. The broad subsistence patterns of Habilus allowed them to
survive without hunting.
One of the most successful Homo groups to ever exist, existing far longer than modern
humans, is Homo Erectus (“upright man”), fossils of which have been found all over Africa,
Asia, and Europe, dating to about 2 MYA to 300,000 years ago (see Figure 1.6). The first dis-
covery of Erectus was called Java Man, as he was discovered on the island of Java, by Eugene
DuBois in 1891. The brain size of Erectus is much bigger than that of Habilus, nearly 1000cc, with
a rounder, flatter forehead, and a much more human-​like face and appearance. Body hair is also
much less than in previous species, with more eccrine sweat glands and a longer nose for cool-
ing, and Erectus is more like modern humans in terms of height (5–​6 feet tall, with males taller
than females), and in terms of communication, which is increased. The whites of the eyes have
become more and more visible among Homo groups, because the eyes are so important for
accuracy of emotional expression and communication. Homo Erectus was clearly a hunter, using
more sophisticated compound tools including spears and knives, and hunting in large groups.
Homo Erectus is thought to have been the first species to have captured fire, a major achieve-
ment that changed the lives of early groups, allowing cooking, warmth, a source of light in the
night (and a reason to stay up late and tell stories). Highly successful, Homo Erectus migrated
from Africa to Europe and to Asia. Various groups are descended just from Homo Erectus, includ-
ing Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Neanderthalensis. Heidelbergensis is an early form of us,
Homo Sapiens (“Thinking Man”); Neanderthalensis is a close cousin, but not a direct ancestor
of modern humans.
Fossil finds in Europe and Africa are evidence of Heidelbergensis, so named because he was
first documented when found in Heidelberg, Germany in 1907. Heidelbergensis is dated to around
700,000 to 200,000 years ago. Scholars assert that the skulls of this group are rather an inter-
mediate form of Erectus and Sapiens, less primitive than Erectus with an increasingly rounded
13

Human Evolution 13

Figure 1.6 Reconstruction of a Homo Erectus skull

Source: Wiki

and large forehead. This frontal lobe development would support planning, creativity, and com-
munication, superior compared to other animals. Communication is particularly advanced com-
pared to other earlier Homo groups. The teeth also show support for an intermediate form (see
“Critical Thinking”), a form in between Erectus and Sapiens, which would not only support greater
oral communication but also continuously growing variety in diet, especially with availability of
fire and cooking. Heidelbergensis were nomadic, traveling long distances depending on season
and herds of large animals they followed, including woolly mammoths. Although many groups did
migrate to Europe, some stayed in Africa. Scholars today argue that Heidelbergensis evolved into
two separate but related groups, Homo Neanderthalensis in Europe, and Homo Sapiens in Africa,
with the two regions undergoing very different climatic changes (Ice Age in Europe, drought
in Africa).
Perhaps the most fascinating group of early Homo are Neanderthals, so called because they
were found in the Neander Valley in Germany, in 1856 (although they were first found in Belgium
in 1829). Despite common ideas, Homo Sapiens is not directly descended from Neanderthal Man;
they are a distinct species (Hublin, 2009). Neanderthal evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis in
14

14 Human Evolution
Europe around 400,000 years ago, and survived, co-​existing with Homo Sapiens, until around
30,000 years ago (Pinhasi, Higham, Golovanova, & Doronichev, 2011). The Neanderthals looked
like the typical image of the cave person; shorter than modern humans (5.5 feet on average),
but rather large (180 pounds) and very muscular, with shorter limbs. Neanderthals had a large
head and brain (1450cc) but a smaller frontal lobe compared to humans. Archaeological evidence
indicates that they lived in groups, including structures built for homes. They most certainly cre-
ated tools and hunted and used fire. They buried their dead with gifts and artifacts, suggesting
complex social relationships and close family bonds. Like other groups of human ancestors, like
other animals on Earth, Neanderthals loved each other.
Science did not realize that Neanderthal Man was not a direct ancestor of human beings
until the 1990s, when with modern technology geneticists discovered that Neanderthal genes
were not in fact human. While Neanderthals and humans are 99.8% genetically similar, some
genes are turned on in Neanderthals but not in humans, and vice versa, mainly genes affect-
ing brain function and the shape and length of arms, hands, and legs (Gokhman et al., 2014).
Additional genetics research indicates that among modern human beings alive today, about
9% possess genes shared with Neanderthals, with about 1–​4% of genes being shared. Clearly,
Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens were interbreeding and producing offspring. Interestingly,
humans and Neanderthal do not share mitochondrial DNA, DNA that is present within the mito-
chondria (engines) of every human body cell that is inherited always from one’s mother. Because
of this, scholars suggest that matings between female humans and male Neanderthals produced
viable offspring, while matings between female Neanderthals and male humans apparently did
not. Humans with Neanderthal genes are exclusively non-​African, of European or Asian des-
cent; the ancient humans in Africa did not interbreed with Neanderthals because there were no
Neanderthal neighbors in Africa.
In close competition with Neanderthals for most fascinating early humans are Homo
Floresiensis, nicknamed “The Hobbit,” who was first discovered in 2003; and Homo Sapiens
Denisovans, first discovered in 2010. Homo Floresiensis existed at the same time as Homo
Sapiens and Neanderthalensis, about 200,000 to 50,000 years ago, but only on the small island
of Flores in Indonesia. Apparently this group had become isolated on the island, and over time
had evolved into a unique species. Speciation often involves this kind of geographic isolation,
with traits adaptive to the specific environment becoming more frequent in successive genera-
tions, eventually resulting in a new species. Living on this tiny island resulted in tiny people, only
about 3 feet, 6 inches tall, about 65 pounds, with a small brain (450cc), large teeth, and large
feet. They created tools, hunted live prey, and used fire.
Homo Sapiens Denisovans, a subspecies of human, also existed at the same time as Homo
Sapiens and Neanderthalensis, but their fossil remains have only yet been found in the Denisova
caves in Siberia. Scholars argue that their origins are the same as Neanderthals, and that they
also interbred with ancestors of modern humans. Like all advanced Homo groups, the Denisovans
lived in groups and used tools. People alive today who are of Melanesian or Aboriginal Australian
descent possess some Denisovan genes (about 3 to 5%) (Gibbons, 2011).
With all of these cousins and ancestors and subspecies, all of them now extinct, where in
the world did we come from? There is ample evidence indicating support for the Out-​of-​Africa
hypothesis, the idea that modern human beings, Homo Sapiens (sometimes called Homo
Sapiens Sapiens), evolved as a separate species within Africa around 150,000 to 200,000 years
ago, and then migrated all over to populate the planet, beginning around 80,000 years ago.
Groups of Homo Heidelbergensis that stayed in Africa are currently thought to be our most direct
15

Human Evolution 15
ancestor. Homo Sapiens has long arms and legs, and a large brain (1360cc), with a particularly
large frontal lobe for thinking, planning, experiencing consciousness, and forming identity and
empathy. The skull is unique; it is called “high-​vaulted” (Puiu, 2020), with a nearly vertical and
wide forehead. It is relatively thin compared to earlier hominid skulls. Brow ridges are very small
compared to prior species, as are teeth and jaws, so modern humans have less of the caveman
look. Although height and weight clearly vary depending on genes, living conditions, childhood
well-​being, food supplies and so on, among North Americans today, the average man is 5 feet,
9 inches tall, weighing 172 pounds, while the average woman is 5 feet, 4 inches tall, weighing 137
pounds. Men are about 15–​20% larger than women and much stronger, on average. Men possess
50–​80% greater upper body strength and 30–​60% greater lower body strength than women
(Lassek & Gaulin, 2009). I mention these size and strength differences now because they are
important and meaningful for understanding nearly everything else in this book. As we move for-
ward, ask yourself this question every time you hear about some way in which men and women
are different: how do size and strength differences come into play here? This is certainly not the
only question you should ask, but it is an important one.

Modern Human Variation

Every human being alive today is a member of the same species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And
yet, human beings are clearly very different in many ways. Like other species, we see great vari-
ability among humans in physical height and body build, facial features, hair color and texture,
skin color, and in behavioral traits, including personality, intelligence, and mental health. Think
of all the breeds of dog you know. Giants like Great Danes, and tiny dogs like Chihuahuas. There
is fur of all kinds, all colors and textures, and different personalities across different breeds. All
dogs alive today are one species, Canis lupus familiaris, but there are clearly genetic variations
among them.
For humans, one variation that has consumed the psychology of people over human history
is that of skin color. This is a natural variation determined by genes, with differences in melanin
production responsible for skin color differences. Variations in melanin are important for survival
in a very basic way, because environments around the globe vary significantly in terms of sun
exposure and correspondingly ambient temperature. In Africa, the sun is hot and intense; it is vis-
ible most of the day, so people are exposed to it all day long. This is true for practically the whole
year, across seasons. In such an environment, darker skin is much more adaptive; it is less likely
to burn and less likely to produce cancer, with melanin protecting the body from damaging ultra-
violet light (Brenner & Hearing, 2008). Sunlight to some degree is essential for human life, how-
ever; the body produces Vitamin D from absorption of sunlight through the skin. While people
in Africa are exposed to lots of sunlight, in more northern areas of the planet, including Europe,
especially Scandinavia, sunlight is rather scarce, and when the sun is out it is not intense. For this
reason, lighter skin is more adaptive in these types of environments, because it absorbs more of
the relatively scarce sunlight than darker skin. Over many years, variations in hominid skin color
arose because different groups were living in different environments.
Another variation that is obvious across people involves differences in body size and shape,
really for the purposes of thermal regulation of the body. There are two rules to describe varia-
tions in body shape and body size, called Allen’s Rule and Bergmann’s Rule. Allen’s Rule (Allen,
1877) asserts that in warm-​blooded animals, species will vary in the shape of ears and append-
ages depending on the climate of their environment. In colder, northern environments, limbs,
16

16 Human Evolution
digits, and ears will be rounder and more compact, to conserve body heat, whereas in warmer
climates, they will be longer, to allow greater surface-​to-​air ratio and greater cooling of the body
through the skin. Bergmann’s Rule (Bergmann, 1847) is similar but applies to body size, with
humans being generally larger overall in colder climates, smaller and leaner overall in warmer
climates, with larger, more compact bodies having lower surface-​to-​air ratios, again so that body
heat is preserved.
Human beings vary in many other respects, because variation within species is so important
for survival. Modern variations that are said to be recent evolutionary changes include lactose
tolerance and eye color. Among nearly all mammals, the capacity to digest lactose, a sugar found
in milk, turns off when offspring are no longer in infancy, because the animals are no longer
dependent on mother for food (Swallow, 2003). Human beings are believed to be the only mam-
mal with the ability to digest lactose after early childhood. Lactose persistence is genetic; it var-
ies widely, with very high proportions of people descended from Northern and Western Europe
being able to digest lactose well, and lower proportions among people in Asia and much of Africa
(Bersaglieri et al., 2004; Gerbault et al., 2011). The gene for lactose tolerance is recently evolved,
estimated to have occurred first around 10,000 years ago (Bersaglieri et al., 2004), coincidentally
around the time when people started keeping animals for food. Another recent genetic change,
caused by a genetic mutation in one single person, led to blue eyes, and is thought to have
occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago (Eiberg et al., 2008). That person is the relative of
every blue-​eyed person who has ever lived and who will ever live on Earth.

The Evolution Controversy

Evolution is supported by evidence from every branch of science; from geology, archaeology,
and paleontology, to biogeography, biology, microbiology, physiology, zoology, and psychology.
Evolution as the process behind all of the life on Earth is supported by 97% of the world’s sci-
entists (Pew Research Center, 2009). So why then is there still controversy surrounding this
explanation (see “Critical Thinking”)? Only 33% of Americans accept evolution as a completely
natural process responsible for biological diversity on Earth (Pew Research Center, 2015). Why?
The following is from a sticker placed into all science textbooks by the Alabama Department
of Education in 1995 (Dawkins, 1997):

• This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scien-
tific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one
was present when life first appeared on earth, therefore, any statement about life’s origins
should be considered as theory, not fact.

Please note the appeal to ignorance used in this official government statement (see “Critical
Thinking”). Indeed, the current Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, referred to evo-
lution as “just a theory” in a speech to Congress in 2002, at the same time asserting that cre-
ationism should be taught in every high school biology course. The United States Department
of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is in favor of teaching “intelligent design” (another term
for creationism) in public schools (Waldman, 2017). Let’s be clear on this issue: there is no evi-
dence supporting creationism. First, the Biblical account, taken literally, that the Earth and life
on it were created in six days, is not naturally possible. Second, even if the Biblical account is not
taken literally and days are interpreted in millions or billions of years, the account is not true and
does not explain the existing evidence. There is no systematic, scientific evidence supporting any
17

Human Evolution 17

creator of the universe or the Earth. Human beings did not arise from dust and bones. We know
that human beings and all of life on Earth evolved over time based on the abundant and clear
evidence from every branch of science supporting that fact. To deny the observed evidence, to
deny our senses in pursuit of a false idea, is unreasonable and not at all adaptive.
In addition to being false, teaching creationism is harmful, because it encourages ignorance
of evidence, and modernly, a mistrust and dismissal of science (Pew Research Center, 2015).
Conservative and religious thinking are also linked with negative attitudes toward higher edu-
cation (Brown, 2018). In 1984, the U.S. Committee on Science and Creationism concluded that
teaching creation science is anathema to the need for a “scientifically literate citizenry” and a
large pool of technically and scientifically qualified workers. Science is a method for discerning
truth about the natural world. It uses empirical, systematic observation, precise measurements
and analyses, and peer review. The fruits of science are all around us and benefit humankind
greatly on a daily basis. Yes, sometimes people misuse science; they fake the evidence somehow
(see “Critical Thinking”). But science is not the culprit here, the person using the science is.
Science as a method for discovering truth is superior because it works. As a student in this kind
of course, you are here to study what science says about women and men on our planet today,
how they are similar and how they are different, and why that variation exists.

Chapter Summary
Abundant evidence indicates that life on our planet evolved over billions of years from earlier,
simpler forms. Common descent from earlier forms is supported by biogeography, anatomical
evidence, the fossil record, and genetic evidence. Natural selection is the process by which life
evolved, with individual organisms possessing characteristics enhancing survival better able to
reproduce and pass along such adaptive qualities. Human beings began to evolve about 7 million
years ago, when there was a lineage split between apes and humans. Human beings evolved from
Australopithecine creatures who were very ape-​like and lived in trees, across various groups of
early “man-​like” creatures in the same genus called Homo. Bipedalism was particularly important
in our evolution, enabling the use of hands which then accelerated brain growth, which accel-
erated development of planning, intelligence, and language. Various species co-​existed with
early Homo Sapiens, including different (and now extinct) species, Homo Floresiensis and Homo
Neanderthalensis. Modern variations in our species include skin color, body shape, eye color, and
lactose persistence. Although controversial mainly because it conflicts with religious accounts of
life on our planet, evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life on our planet because it
is supported by abundant evidence from nearly every branch of science.

Thoughtful Questions

• Explain how a decrease in the number of trees in Africa millions of years ago affected
human evolution.
• Describe the physical qualities shared by primates that are adaptations for living
in trees.
• Imagine a distant planet, very far from Earth, that is populated by two groups, the
Biggies and the Littles. The Biggies are taller and much stronger than the Littles. They
18

18 Human Evolution

are similar in intelligence. Describe how society might be structured on this planet.
Who’s in charge?
• How might sex differences in physical size and strength affect daily tasks and respon-
sibilities of individuals in early Homo groups?
• Imagine that women and men were on average the same size, with on average the
same physical strength. How do you think the world would be different?
• Describe three early hominid groups.
• How do the examples of human evolution presented here show intermediate forms?
• Why have blue eyes spread so rapidly across the human population, having only
occurred as a genetic mutation about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago?
• Explain how lactose persistence is adaptive using evolutionary theory.

Glossary
Adaptation: any characteristic that enhances the ability of a species to survive in a particular
environment. A basic dimension of natural selection.
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP): a small molecule (a nucleotide) that supports energy transfer
and metabolism at the cellular level. A biochemical necessary for life that is present in all living
things.
Allen’s Rule: warm-​blooded species will vary in the shape of ears and appendages depending
on the climate of their environment (rounder, more compact in colder climates; longer and
leaner in warmer climates).
Bergmann’s Rule: warm-​blooded species will be larger overall in colder climates, smaller
overall in warmer climates, with larger, more compact bodies having lower surface-​to-​air ratios,
so that body heat is preserved.
Biogeography: the study of plant and animal life as it varies in different environments all over
the world.
Common descent: a central premise of evolutionary theory, that all life on the planet evolved
over time from earlier simpler forms.
Creationism: the religious idea that a deity created the universe, the Earth, and all life on Earth
through magical processes.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA): a protein structure that exists in every cell of all living things
and composes the genetic code. DNA composes genes, which are present on chromosomes in
the nuclei of cells.
Evolution: the process by which all life forms came to be on our planet, evolving from earlier,
simpler forms through the process of natural selection.
Evolutionary theory: the scientific explanation that life on our planet evolved over millions and
millions of years from earlier, simpler forms. Evolutionary theory is supported by evidence in
every branch of science and is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists.
Fossil: any remains of past life (bones, teeth, shells, tools, footprints, etc.).
Homo: in Latin, “man”; the genus of human beings (Homo Sapiens) and many other now
extinct groups. Three criteria for the genus are a large brain, small teeth and jaws, and tool making.
19

Human Evolution 19
Homologous forms: many body structures and processes are similar across species; the forms
are the same. Homologous forms are evidence of common descent.
Lactose persistence: a genetic trait involving ability to digest lactose (milk sugar) with ease.
Melanin: a protein substance that produces pigment in the body, particularly skin color.
Morality: ideas about right and wrong. Moral behavior involves doing the right thing for the
greatest well-​being of all, even with self-​sacrifice.
Mutations: random changes in genetic material that lead to variations in phenotype (see
Chapter 3).
Natural selection: the process by which the natural environment “selects” some species
members for survival and reproduction because they possess qualities that are particularly
well-​suited for that environment.
Open system: a system where energy is expended and acquired from the environment. Earth is
an open system, with constant energy provided by the sun.
Out-​of-​Africa hypothesis: the idea that Homo Sapiens evolved only in Africa, then migrated to
populate the Earth.
Pair bonding: development of a strong emotional bond between sexual mates. Occurs across
species, including primates.
Part-​whole fallacy: the poor argument tactic that if one part or one piece of a group or body is
fake or bad, then the whole group or body is fake or bad.
Primates: various mammalian species characterized by qualities evolved for living in trees.
Includes the great apes (humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans), monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs,
and many other species.
Punctuated equilibrium: evolution of species involves long periods of stability followed by
sudden periods of rapid change, usually caused by sudden changes in the living environment or
mutations.
Reciprocity: the norm of giving and receiving. Receiving from others typically entails giving
back to them in some form at some time.
Ribonucleic acid (RNA): a nucleic acid that is essential for protein production at the cellular
level; RNA carries genetic instructions provided by DNA in the cell nucleus.
Straw person: a poor argument tactic whereby a solid argument is labeled as something easily
knocked down (like a straw person) or easily dismissed (“only” a theory).
Struggle for existence: the fact that life is difficult; existence is a struggle for all species on
the planet and always has been. A basic dimension of natural selection.
Survival of the fittest: the fact that those species members who possess the most adaptive
characteristics for living in a particular environment will survive and reproduce in that
environment. Those members who do not possess adaptive qualities will not survive, and thus
will not reproduce or will reproduce less. A basic dimension of natural selection.
Theory: an explanation. Good theories explain most or all of the known evidence, provide
testable hypotheses, are guided by natural law, and are falsifiable.
Variation: all species show variability in physical and behavioral traits and abilities. Variation
within species is essential for species survival. A basic dimension of natural selection.
20

20 Human Evolution

References
Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Ahmed, Z., Aikin, R. W., & Partridge, B. (2015). Joint analysis of BICEP2/Keck array
and Planck data. Physical Review Letters, 114(10), 1–​17. doi:0031-​9007=15=114(10)=101301(17).
Allen, J. A. (1877). The influence of physical conditions in the genesis of species. Radical Review, 1, 108–​140.
Bergmann, C. (1847). Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger
Studien 1: 595–​708.
Bersaglieri, T., Sabeti, P. C., Patterson, N., Vanderploeg, T., Schaffner, S. F., Drake, J. A., Rhodes, M., Reich, D. E.,
& Hirschhorn, J. N. (2004). Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene.
American Journal of Human Genetics, 74(6), 1111–​1120. doi:10.1086/​421051.
Braterman, P. S. (2013). How science figured out the age of Earth. Scientific American, 20, 4–​12.
Brenner, M. & Hearing, V. J. (2008). The protective role of melanin against UV damage in human skin.
Photochemistry Photobiology, 84(3), 539–​549. doi:10.1111/​j.1751-​1097.2007.00226.x.
Brown, A. (2018). Most Americans say higher ed is heading in wrong direction, but partisans disagree on why.
Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/​fact-​tank/​2018/​07/​26/​most-​americans-​say-​higher-​ed-​is-
​heading-​in-​wrong-​direction-​but-​partisans-​disagree-​on-​why/.​
Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured
races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (1997). The “Alabama insert”: A study in ignorance and dishonesty. Journal of the Alabama
Academy of Science, 68(1), 1–​19.
Eiberg, H., Troelsen, J., Nielsen, M., Mikkelsen, A., Mengel-​From, J., Kjaer, K. W., & Hansen, L. (2008). Blue
eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly associated founder mutation in a regulatory element
located within the HERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2 expression. Human Genetics, 123(2), 177–​187. doi:10.1007/​
s00439-​007-​0460-​x.
Gerbault, P., Liebert, A., Itan, Y., Powell, A., Currat, M., Burger, J., Swallow, D. M., & Thomas, M. G. (2011).
Evolution of lactase persistence: An example of human niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society, 366(1566), 863–​877. doi:10.1098/​rstb.2010.0268.
Gibbons, D. W., Wilson, J. D., & Green, R. E. (2011). Using conservation science to solve conservation problems.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 505–​508. doi:10.1111/​j.1365-​2664.2011.01997.x.
Gokhman, D., Lavi, E., Prüfer, K., Fraga, M. F., Riancho, J. A., Kelso, J., Pääbo, S., Meshorer, E., & Carmel, L.
(2014). Reconstructing the DNA methylation maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan. Science, 344,
523–​527.
Lassek, W. D. & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2009). Costs and benefits of fat-​free muscle mass in men: Relationship to
mating success, dietary requirements, and native immunity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 322–​328.
doi:10.1016/​j.evolhumbehav.2009.04.002.
Loftus, E. F. & Palmer J. C. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. In Banyard, P., & Grayson, A. (Eds.), Introducing psy-
chological research (pp. 305–​309). London: Palgrave.
Mojzsis, S. J., Arrhenius, G., McKeegan, K. D., Harrison, T. M., Nutman, A. P., & Friend, C. R. (1996). Evidence for
life on Earth before 3,800 million years ago. Nature, 384(6604), 55–​59. doi:10.1038/​384055a0.
Noffke, N., Christian, D., Wacey, D., & Hazen, R. M. (2013). Microbially induced sedimentary structures record-
ing an ancient ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 billion-​year-​old dresser formation, Pilbara, Western Australia.
Astrobiology, 13(12), 1103–​1124. doi:10.1089/​ast.2013.1030.
Pew Research Center (2009). Global attitudes & trends. July 23. www.pewresearch.org/​global/​2009/​07/​23/​
lessons-​from-​the-​2009-​global-​attitudes-​survey-​transcript/.​
Pew Research Center (2015). Strong role of religion in views about evolution and perceptions of scientific
consensus. October 22. www.pewresearch.org/​science/​2015/​10/​22/​strong-​role-​of-​religion-​in-​views-​about-​
evolution-​and-​perceptions-​of-​scientific-​consensus/.​
Puiu, T. (2020). The timeline of human evolution. ZME Science. February 13. www.zmescience.com/​science/​
timeline-​human-​evolutio-​423/.​
Powner, M. W., Gerland, B., & Sutherland, J. D. (2009). Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in
prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature, 459, 239–​242. doi:10.1038/​nature08013.
Skeptics Society (2010). Top 10 myths about evolution. www.skeptic.com/​downloads/​top-​10-​evolution-​myths.
Swallow, D. M. (2003). Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annual Review of Genetics, 37,
197–​219. doi:10.1146/​annurev.genet.37.110801.143820.
Waldman, S. A. & Terzic, A. (2017). Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics: Past, present, and future. Precision
Medicine, 101(3), 300–​303. doi:10.1002/​cpt.592.
Walker, P. L. (2001). A bioarcheological perspective on the history of violence. Annual Review of Archeology,
30, 573–​576. doi:0084-​6570/​01/​1021-​0573$14.00.
Yunis, J. J. & Prakash, O. (1982). The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science, 215(4539),
1525–​1530. doi:10.1126/​science.7063861.
newgenprepdf

21

2 The Cellular Basis of Life

The Human Body: Cells and Their Basic Structure and Function 23
Organelles, Chromosomes, Genes, DNA 23
Mitosis and Meiosis 25
Meiosis and Variability 27
Autosomes and Sex Chromosomes 29
Problems in Meiosis 29

INEQUALITIES AND INJUSTICES

Baby Boys Are More Valuable?

Historically and across cultures, it is quite common to find that sons are considered more
valuable than daughters (Bandyopadhyay & Singh, 2003). The Bible says a woman is doubly
unclean after giving birth to a daughter compared to a son (Leviticus 12:2, 12:5), suggesting
lower value of female children. An obvious preference for sons rather than daughters has
persisted across centuries and into the modern era in China, India, and Korea (Gupta et al.,
2003), Pakistan (Saeed, 2015), and Vietnam and Taiwan (Jha et al., 2006). Most scholars
assert that sons are preferred because of their economic benefits to families. In agrarian
and nomadic cultures, the greater physical strength of sons is potentially more useful in
daily labor requiring physical strength (e.g., hunting, digging, carrying, lifting). In the mod-
ern world, men still earn more money on average than women (United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2017; World Economic Forum, 2016), with sons clearly able to then give
more back to their parents in old age, when assistance is more likely to be required. India
and China in particular favor sons, including by high rates of selective abortion of female
fetuses (Chen, Li, & Meng, 2012; Ganatra, Hirve, Walawalker, Garda, & Rao, 2000; Jha et al.,
2011). Brides in India also bring a high dowry, so daughters are expensive at marriage
(Rahman & Rao, 2004), and if they are divorced or abandoned by their husbands, they are
a shame to the family. Brides in situations of conflict over dowries are increasingly victims
of physical abuse, suicide, and homicide in India (Natarajan, 1995; Rastogi & Therly, 2006).
22

22 Cellular Basis of Life

In modern times, physical strength is less important for daily survival and occupational
success, yet old traditions favoring boys over girls persist. This chapter highlights the cel-
lular underpinnings of biological sex, natural, rather simple, common, predictable cellular
processes that have very meaningful implications for survival and success.

LEARN MORE

Different Kinds of Human Body Cells

Not being an anatomy book, there are so many parts of the human body and different kinds
of cells that we can’t discuss. But there is a lot of information available on different kinds
of cells, what they do, which kinds divide and replicate and which kinds don’t, and how long
they actually live. For example, nerve cells do not reproduce; this is why spinal cord and
brain injuries are so devastating, because they are usually irreversible and the body cannot
heal them. Blood cells also do not reproduce; blood cells are produced by bone marrow in
the body when new cells are needed. Find out more about different kinds of cells at http://​
sciencenetlinks.com/​student-​teacher-​sheets/​cells-​your-​body/​.

CRITICAL THINKING

Genes and Aggression?

Genes are the recipe for each of us as individual human beings. They determine physi-
cal body structures and even behavioral qualities, including personality traits, tendency
toward alcoholism (Heath & Martin, 1994) and mental illness (Hennah, Thomson, Peltonen,
& Porteous, 2006), and even aggressive behavior (Blonigen et al., 2003; Tellegen et al.,
1988). What are some potential bases for these links? There is no denying the importance
of society and important social institutions (family, community, school, religion) in affect-
ing a person’s behavior; someone who receives love, affection, and plenty of resources
(good education, health care, healthy food, etc.) will develop as a healthy person and will
be less likely to be aggressive or criminal. However, genes are linked with criminal behavior
(Bohman, Cloninger, Sigvardsson, & von Knorring, 1982), including violent criminal behav-
ior (Tiihonen et al., 2015). Jacob’s Syndrome (when a person has XYY sex chromosomes)
at one point was thought to be linked to aggressive, criminal behavior by men, as if the
“extra maleness” provided by a second Y chromosome contributes to masculine, aggres-
sive behavior (Jacobs et al., 1965). This claim has largely been refuted (Beckwith, 2002),
but evidence remains of the link between genes and criminality. How do you think this
happens, genes translating into criminal or aggressive behavior? Think of some potential
mechanisms by which genes may determine behavioral qualities.
23

Cellular Basis of Life 23

BONUS BOX

Moms Give More (Genetically) Than Dads

Each of us commonly knows that we inherit certain qualities from our moms, and other
qualities from our dads. Within eggs and sperm, 23 chromosomes exist; when they com-
bine, they create us, with 46 chromosomes, 23 from mom, and 23 from dad. The common
understanding of genetics is that we get “half from mom, half from dad.” But what most
people don’t know is that DNA doesn’t only exist within a cell nucleus; DNA also exists
inside mitochondria, the tiny organelles inside our cells that are vital for energy conver-
sion. The DNA inside mitochondria (called mitochondrial DNA) contains the same recipe
that every single body cell follows for taking nutrients entering the cell and converting
them to energy to be used by the cell. We only inherit this DNA from our mothers. Why, you
might ask? Because sperm contain no organelles; they only contain 23 chromosomes ready
to unite with the egg’s 23. The egg, however, is rich in nutrients and ready for fertilization,
having been nurtured by the ovaries in preparation for reproduction. The egg contains
nutrients and all the organelles our cells need, including mitochondria. These mitochondria
are reproduced billions of times, beginning with fertilization and ending with each person’s
death. So thank you moms everywhere, for providing us with this important structure and
the instructions needed to survive and grow every day!

The Human Body: Cells and Their Basic Structure and Function
The human body is composed of over 37 trillion cells, all of which are alive and contributing
something to our bodies. Some cells die and replace themselves; other cells die and are not
replaced. New cells are created when children grow and when wounds heal. Different cells have
different and various functions. Muscle cells enable movement; brain cells enable thoughts, con-
sciousness, feelings, and commands to other cells. Blood cells carry oxygen and nutrients to the
other cells in our bodies. Every cell has a particular and specific function, which is usually carried
out based on the production of proteins at the cellular level. Cells produce proteins that sustain
life. Proteins communicate to other cells and allow the body to function (muscles to move, nutri-
ents to be absorbed, hair to grow, hormones to be released). The same is true of the body cells
of other species, which have similar structure and function, evidence of our common ancestry.

Organelles, Chromosomes, Genes, DNA

All living cells have a similar structure (there are some differences that are beyond the scope of
this book). Cells in the human body and nearly every other organism on Earth (except bacteria)
are eukaryotic cells, cells with a nucleus (see Figure 2.1). Cells are bound by a cellular membrane
that is permeable; substances are able to enter and exit the cell. Inside the cell are many differ-
ent little organs, or organelles. The command center of the cell, which tells the cell what pro-
teins to produce and therefore how to function, is the nucleus. The nucleus is bound by its own
membrane called the nuclear envelope. Within the nucleus are chromosomes, long thin protein
structures that contain genes. Most of the time, except when the cell is dividing, chromosomes
exist in the nucleus in an indistinct form called chromatin.
24

24 Cellular Basis of Life

Lysosome
Ribosomes
Centriole Cilium
Cell membrane
Centrosome

Smooth endoplasmic
Peroxisome reticulum

Nuclear pore

Nucleolus

Nucleus
Nucleoplasm

Nuclear
enveolope

Rough endoplasmic
reticulum

Golgi apparatus

Mitochondrion

Secretory vesicles Cytoplasm

Figure 2.1 A eukaryotic cell

Source: Shutterstock

Genes are inherited from our parents (and in turn from all of our other ancestors as well) and
determine the cellular organization and operation of our bodies. Because the cellular organiza-
tion and operation of our bodies is determined by genes, genes determine many physical and
behavioral traits. For example, blue eyes are produced by cellular production of proteins that is
determined by genes. Brown eyes are determined by different proteins at the cellular level, also
specified by genes. Genes specify the sequence of amino acids to be used in protein production
within each cell. Genes in a sense contain the recipe or instructions for cellular function. Genes
are composed of long strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is a basic nucleotide chain
that is essential to life on our planet, composed of amino acids, sugars, and phosphates.
Although all of our genes (46 chromosomes’ worth, 23 homologous pairs, about 20,000 indi-
vidual genes arrayed across those 46 chromosomes) are present inside every nucleus inside
every one of our body cells, each cell is obviously not operated by all of our genes. Some genes
are turned on within individual cells; those genes tell that cell how to function. Different genes
are active in brain cells than are active in muscle cells than are active in skin cells. Cell differen-
tiation is thus, of course, determined by genes; working as a whole, our genes determine how we
look, grow, develop, age, what diseases we might develop, whether we are susceptible to mental
illness, even our personality traits, and many other qualities and body functions. This is why we
might resemble a parent or other relative, because we possess the same genes they do for those
qualities. We will talk much more about genes and inheritance in our next chapter (Chapter 3,
Genetics).
25

Cellular Basis of Life 25

Other organelles inside each body cell are also important for sustaining life; they are best
understood in terms of their role in protein production. The genes in the nucleus specify the
production of proteins in each particular cell. Inside the nucleus, the DNA instructions create
molecules called RNA (ribonucleic acid). These RNA molecules literally read the recipe inside
the nucleus for the proteins produced by that particular cell. These RNA molecules (often called
messenger RNA) then leave the nucleus and enter the cell to begin protein production. The RNA
takes the instructions first to a structure called the endoplasmic reticulum, or ER. This is where
protein production begins. The beginning protein then leaves the ER packaged in what’s called a
vesicle, which then travels through the cytoplasm (fluid inside each cell that contains the orga-
nelles) to another organelle called a Golgi apparatus. The Golgi apparatus continues processing
and modifying the protein, which is released in a vesicle back into the cytoplasm. The protein
then either leaves the cell for some body function or stays in the cell for its own functioning.
Other organelles include the mitochondria, the energy factories inside each cell. The mitochon-
dria take in nutrients and convert them into energy for the cell to use. Also inside the mitochon-
dria are essential genes (inherited only from one’s mother, more in Chapter 3) that control energy
conversion. Other organelles, called centrioles, are important for creating a spindle apparatus
that helps the cell to divide when cells reproduce.

Mitosis and Meiosis

The human life cycle is characterized by two main processes, growth and reproduction. Growth
of course begins in utero and continues throughout the lifespan, although much of it is accom-
plished in early childhood and adolescence. Certain features continue to grow as we get older; in
a cruel twist of fate, it is noses, ears, and feet that continue to grow! All growth, including repair
of torn skin, broken bones, and other injuries, is accomplished through the cellular process of
mitosis, a cell replication and division process that produces two identical body cells, with each
having the same number and type of organelles, and a nucleus that contains all 46 chromosomes
within. Mitosis occurs when children grow, when a cut heals itself, when body cells need to be
replaced because they die. Understanding mitosis is important because it is a process that is
essential for human development.
Mitosis is a rather straightforward process. Most of the time, cells are engaged in their typical
function: producing body chemicals, transmitting information, producing movement. But within
the cell life cycle, at some point mitosis will occur, again, whenever new cells are needed. Before
mitosis begins, in preparation for it, the cell duplicates all of its organelles, so each has an exact
copy. The chromosomes also duplicate themselves, with each chromosome bound to its duplicate
by a centromere. A chromosome that has replicated itself is now composed of two copies called
sister chromatids. The cell also synthesizes proteins that are important for cell division.
Mitosis itself occurs in several stages. First, in prophase, the nuclear envelope becomes frag-
ments and the sister chromatids become visible, scattered throughout the cytoplasm. The cen-
trioles begin to form the spindle apparatus, a network of fibers that will help the cell to divide
by both pulling chromosomes to each side and pushing the cell apart. During metaphase, the
chromosomes align down the center of the cell, with each centriole moving to each side, to the
poles of the cell. Anaphase is when the cell begins to divide; the spindle pulls each sister chro-
matid (representing each single chromosome) to one side. During telophase, the chromosomes
arrive at the poles, 46 at each (called the diploid number of chromosomes, or 2n). The spindle
apparatus disappears, and new nuclei form around each set of 46 chromosomes. The last stage
26

26 Cellular Basis of Life

Interphase Prophase Metaphase Anaphase Telophase Cytokinesis

DNA × 2 Formation of The formation The distribution Disappearance of Formation of two

chromosomes of the spindle of chromatids the division spindle identical
with two chromatids to spindle the formation daughter cells
destruction of the of a nuclear
nuclear shell membrane

Figure 2.2 Mitosis

Source: Viktoriya Kabanova/​Alamy Stock Vector

is cytokinesis, the division of the cytoplasm and organelles. The cell membrane forms a cleav-
age furrow in the middle of the cell to separate the two new cells. At the end of mitosis, there are
two identical cells, each having formed from one original parent cell. This is how cell replication
occurs, and it occurs millions of times in a lifetime, whenever new cells are needed (see “Learn
More”) (see Figure 2.2).
Meiosis is a very similar but altogether different process that is mainly concerned with what
might happen during adulthood, reproduction. Your entire life, your body has been prepar-
ing itself to reproduce, to produce offspring. The follicles of eggs within each girl and woman
begin forming in utero, when she is in the uterus of her mother. Viable sperm are produced at
the very beginnings of puberty in boys. Meiosis is a type of cell division that is called reduc-
tion division; it does not involve production of identical cells with 46 chromosomes each, but
rather begins with a 2n parent cell and results in four daughter cells with the haploid number
of chromosomes, 23 (aka 1n or just n). Human chromosomes are organized into 23 homologous
pairs, with the paired chromosomes similar in length, number of genes, and gene location, but
they are not identical to each other. One is inherited from each parent. Meiosis essentially
separates the 23 pairs, so that one pair member ends up in each daughter cell. The daugh-
ter cells are not genetically identical; each is unique. Meiosis only occurs in the production
of gametes, sex cells that combine to produce offspring in sexual reproduction. Gametes are
produced within the gonads, ovaries in women and testes (aka testicles) in men. Gametes are
commonly called eggs and sperm. Because each sperm and each egg contain only 23 chromo-
somes, their combination results in a cell that contains 46 chromosomes, 23 inherited from
the egg (one’s mother) and 23 inherited from the sperm (one’s father). So that each parent is
equally represented in the offspring, each gamete contains exactly half of the species’ genetic
code (although see Bonus Box!).
The cell division in meiosis occurs in the same manner as in mitosis, with some exceptions.
Because meiosis begins with one parent cell and results in four, very different and not genetically
identical daughter cells, meiosis requires two cellular divisions, formally called Meiosis I and
Meiosis II (see Figure 2.3). As in the beginning of mitosis, in Meiosis I the organelles of the parent
cell (which is 2n) duplicate themselves, including each of the 46 chromosomes. Each chromo-
some has duplicated itself, so now each of the 23 homologous pairs is composed of a pair of sister
chromatids, bound together at the centromere. At the beginning of Meiosis I, the homologous
pair members line up next to each other, forming what is called a tetrad (meaning four, with each
pair member now duplicated).
27

Cellular Basis of Life 27

Daughter
Nuclei II

Daughter
Nuclei

Interphase Meiosis I
Meiosis II
Homologous
Chromosomes

Figure 2.3 Meiosis

The alignment of the homologous pair members is called synapsis, and it occurs from a pro-
cess that scientists still do not completely understand. During synapsis, the nonsister chromatids
touch each other and seem to embrace; during this process of crossing over, the chromatids
exchange genetic information (see Figure 2.4). For example, pair 1 has two members, A and B. A and
B duplicate themselves before synapsis, so there are now two identical copies of each (e.g., A1 and
A2, both of which are exact copies). When crossing over occurs, the A copies exchange genetic
information with the B copies (so A1 exchanges with B1 and B2, A2 with both B1 and B2 as well per-
haps). In this way, entirely new chromosomes are formed, chromosomes that now contain genes
from both parents together (A1 and A2 are now no longer identical). In other words, a grandchild
may inherit a chromosome made up of genes inherited from both his maternal grandmother and
grandfather; or a chromosome containing genes from both his paternal grandmother and grand-
father. This unique chromosome has never ever existed before, combining the genetic information
of two people. Crossing over doesn’t always happen, but it happens a lot.
After crossing over occurs, the still doubled homologous pair members are separated from each
other, with 23 still doubled (but no longer exact duplicates) chromosomes pulled to each pole of the
dividing cell. Meiosis I results in two daughter cells, each containing one member of each of the 46
homologous pairs, with each member still doubled. The daughter cells are not genetically identical;
each only has one pair member (that is now likely different from crossing over), and there is no
determination of which pair member ends up in each daughter cell. In Meiosis II, both of the new
daughter cells divide, with one sister chromatid from each doubled chromosome going into each
resulting cell. This second division results in four genetically unique daughter cells (eggs or sperm),
ready to combine with the other gamete to create a totally genetically unique human being.

Meiosis and Variability

Why does meiosis occur in this way, ensuring that the resulting gametes are all genetically dif-
ferent from each other? Meiosis is nature’s way of making sure there is great genetic variability
within each species. Variability refers to the fact that there is great variety in the characteristics
28

28 Cellular Basis of Life

Homologous
chromosomes Chromosome
aligned crossover

A A a a A a

B B b b B b

C C c c C c

Recombinant
chromosomes

A A a a

B B b b

C c C c

Nonrecombinant
chromosomes

Figure 2.4 Crossing over of chromatids during meiosis    

of any species; variations in size, shape, color, texture, and many other qualities. Remember, if
every member of a species was genetically identical, one virus could kill the entire species very
quickly. Variability means that some members may be susceptible to the virus, while some are
not; that some have a good immune system to fight it, while others may not. Meiosis in people is
one reason behind our great genetic variability.
There are three ways that each new individual, each human baby born, is assured a different
combination of genes than either parent has. First, crossing over recombines genes on sister
chromatids during Meiosis I, resulting in new combinations of genes, from genetically unre-
lated people (e.g., maternal grandmother and grandfather), that may have literally never existed
before. Second, also during Meiosis I, there is no determination of which pair member from the
23 pairs ends up in which daughter cell. Imagine that for each chromosome pair, you have mem-
ber A and B, across all 23 pairs, so there is A1 and B1, A2 and B2, and so on, all the way to the
last pair, A23 and B23. Any of the pair members can be combined with any combination of all
the other pair members. In other words, there is no systematic way that the As and the Bs
29

Cellular Basis of Life 29

separate during Meiosis I. One daughter cell could have mostly As and some Bs; mostly Bs and
some As; about half As and Bs; or nearly all As (or Bs) and only a few Bs (or As). The number of
possible combinations is enormous. Finally, with sexual reproduction, the genes of genetically
unrelated individuals are combined, resulting in a unique combination of 46 chromosomes, one
pair member inherited from each parent. All three of these processes result in human beings
who are genetically unique, who have a specific combination of particular genes that is by itself
statistically very unlikely (but did happen to result in one unique person). Meiosis is so powerful
in creating diversity within species, it is almost magical (I said almost!).
In human beings, gamete production through meiosis is called spermatogenesis in men and
oogenesis in women. Spermatogenesis is the production of sperm in the testes; it always results
in four sperm, each of which has the haploid (n) number of chromosomes, 23, one from each
homologous pair. Oogenesis is a bit different. Meiosis I results in one oocyte with 23 chromo-
somes (n) and organelles that is ready to be fertilized. The other daughter cell becomes what is
called a polar body, which contains genetic material but no organelles. Meiosis II is not complete
in oogenesis until actual fertilization occurs; eggs that are not fertilized have not completed the
process of meiosis.

Autosomes and Sex Chromosomes

Of the 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes that human beings possess, 22 of those pairs con-
tain genes that determine various physical characteristics of the body as well as behavioral and
health qualities. Those chromosomes are called autosomes. The last pair of chromosomes is
called the sex chromosomes because they determine all of the qualities that are related to bio-
logical sex (female, male, intersex, or some combination) (they actually determine lots of other
non-​sex-​related qualities as well which we will discuss in Chapter 3). While there are multiple
influences on the development of a fetus into a female, male, or intersex baby, the type of chro-
mosomes in this pair of sex chromosomes determines biological sex and related functions for
the most part.
The sex chromosomes can be X or Y. Every person, whatever the sex, possesses an X; a zygote
(a fertilized egg) must have at least one X chromosome to survive (indicating how important this
X is to life). That leaves the other spot in the pair open to another X (XX) or a Y (XY). Usually, XX
in the sex chromosomes results in a female baby, XY results in a boy baby. In gamete production,
every egg produced in oogenesis contains an X (because women are XX). In spermatogenesis,
half of the sperm cells will contain an X, the other two will contain a Y. Upon fertilization, the sex
chromosome carried within the sperm determines the sex of the fetus. Other outcomes, besides
XX and XY, are possible as a result of anomalies in gamete formation.

Problems in Meiosis
Sometimes meiosis does not proceed as it usually does, resulting in four genetically unique
daughter cells, each with 23 chromosomes (one member of each pair). Problems in meiosis can
occur during Meiosis I or during Meiosis II, a problem called nondisjunction (failure of chromo-
somes to separate). When nondisjunction occurs in Meiosis I, the homologous pair members fail
to separate, so that both (in the form of sister chromatids) end up in one daughter cell. When
Meiosis II occurs in that daughter cell which has both pair members (still in the form of sister
chromatids), the two daughter cells that result have two copies of the same chromosome. With
30

30 Cellular Basis of Life

fertilization, another copy of that homologue is added; the result is what is called a trisomy, or
three copies of homologous chromosomes instead of two. The resulting zygote has 47 rather
than 46 chromosomes (see Figure 2.5).
When nondisjunction occurs in Meiosis II, the sister chromatids fail to separate. This results in
two daughter cells, one which has two copies of the same chromosome, and one which is miss-
ing a chromosome from that pair. So you have two gametes, one with 24 chromosomes, and one
with only 22. If fertilization occurs here, the resulting zygote will have 45 or 47 chromosomes,
not 46. When a person only has one member of a chromosome pair, they have what is called a
monosomy. With the autosomes, a trisomy or monosomy may result in the zygote not surviving,
or a fatal problem later in fetal development. But there are some children who are born with an
autosomal monosomy or trisomy who survive.

Meiosis I Meiosis II

n+1

n+1

n–1

Nondisjunction
during meiosis I

n–1

n+1

n–1

Nondisjunction
during meiosis II
n

Figure 2.5 Nondisjunction in Meiosis I and Meiosis II   

31

Cellular Basis of Life 31

Cri du Chat Syndrome is a condition where a child is born with only one member of
chromosome pair 5, or is missing some genetic material from pair 5. These children have a
misshapen larynx, which is responsible for the name of the syndrome (“Cat’s Cry” in French),
as they have a cat-​like voice or cry. They are born with low birth weight and weak muscle
tone. They have small heads with misshapen eyes and ears; widely spaced eyes; their face is
sometimes said to be like a “moon face.” Sadly they are also likely to have severe cognitive
disabilities. Cri du Chat is rare and occurs in about 1 in 50,000 births. If these children live past
age 1 year, they have a normal life expectancy (National Human Genome Research Institute,
2017) (see Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6 Children with Cri du Chat Syndrome   

Source: Paola Cerruti Mainardi. Cri du Chat syndrome. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 1, 33.
2006 (www.ojrd.com/​content/​1/​1/​33).
32

32 Cellular Basis of Life

Down Syndrome is much more common and well known, occurring in about 1 in 700 births.
The likelihood of Down Syndrome increases with age of the mother, suggesting that nondis-
junction in gamete formation is linked with age. Down Syndrome involves a trisomy of chromo-
some pair 21, such that the person has three rather than two copies of chromosome 21. There
are physical features of Down Syndrome, including short stature, a round head, a rather large
tongue that is fissured down the middle, larger gaps between the toes, stubby fingers, and what
is called a folded eyelid. Unfortunately heart and respiratory problems are also common, as are
hearing and thyroid problems. Cognitive disabilities, from mild to severe, are also apparent. The
average lifespan of people with Down Syndrome has increased dramatically from age 25 years
in 1983 to age 60 to 70 years today (Global Down Syndrome Foundation, 2018). This increase is
largely thought to have resulted from an increase in the quality of care of individuals with Down
Syndrome. Instead of institutionalization, more common before the modern era, people with
Down Syndrome are receiving better medical care, more opportunities to live as independent
adults, and more respect and love as individuals. My amazing niece Sadie Grace has Down’s, and
we couldn’t love her any more than we do (see Figure 2.7, she’s so cute!).
With the sex chromosomes, nondisjunction issues also result in particular syndromes, all of
which generally involve the sex characteristics and reproductive organs. The idea that biological
sex involves only two categories (i.e., that sex is binary) is incorrect. There are many chromo-
somal combinations that can result in various sex characteristics, both so-​called “female” and
“male” characteristics, as well as intersex conditions that are a combination of female and male
or ambiguous (more in Chapter 3). As we will see also in later chapters, multiple forces operate in
affecting both biological sex and gender identity (Bussey, 2011).

Figure 2.7 The author’s niece, Sadie Grace, who has Down Syndrome
Source: Author
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Chalcus 7Lepta 0 0 0 011⁄16
Dichalcus 2Chalci 0 0 0 13⁄8
Hemiobolus 2Dichalci 0 0 0 23⁄4
Obolus 2Hemioboli 0 0 1 1½
Diobolus 2Oboli 0 0 2 3
Triobolus 3Oboli 0 0 4 0½
Hemidrachm 3Oboli 0 0 4 0½
Tetrobolus 4Oboli 0 0 5 2
Pentobolus 5Oboli 0 0 6 3½
Drachm 6Oboli 0 0 8
Didrachm 2Drachms 0 1 4 2
Tetradrachm 4Drachms 0 2 9 0
Stater of silver 4Drachms 0 2 9 0
Pentadrachm 5Drachms 0 3 5 1
Stater of gold 25Drachms 0 17 2 1
Stater of Philip 28Drachms 0 19 3 0
Stater of Alexander 28Drachms 0 19 3 0
Stater of Cyzicus 28Drachms 0 19 3 0
Stater of Darius 48Drachms 1 13 0 0
Stater of Crœsus 48Drachms 1 13 0 0
Homerical talent 75Drachms 2 11 6 3
Mina 100Drachms 3 8 9 0
The smaller
Ptolemaic talent 20Minæ 68 15 0 0
The smaller
Antiochan talent 60Minæ 206 5 0 0
The Attic talent 60Minæ 206 5 0 0
The smaller Euboic
talent 60Minæ 206 5 0 0
The great Attic
talent 80Minæ 275 0 0 0
The great Ptolemaic
talent of
Cleopatra 86⅔Minæ 297 18 4 0
 The Eginean talent 100Minæ 343 15 0 0
The Rhodian talent 100Minæ 343 15 0 0
The insular talent 120Minæ 412 10 0 0
The great
Antiochan talent 360Minæ 1237 10 0 0

Those who wish for complete information respecting the ancient

and modern real money, and money of account, may be fully
satisfied by consulting the following writers on the subject.
Augustinus, Arbuthnot, Budæus, Boisard, Bircherod, Bonneville,
Bouteroue, Camden, Du Bost, De Asse, Folkes, Fleetwood, Goltzius,
Guthrie, Gerhart, Greaves, Hardouin, Joubert, Krause, Kelly,
Lowndes, Le Blanc, Locke, Lord Liverpool, Marien, Morel,
Mezzabarba, Norris, Occo, Oiselius, Patin, Pinkerton, Ricard,
Richebourg, Raper, Simon, Snelling, Souciet, Seguin, Sirmond,
Spanheim, Smith, Tristran, Ursinus, Vicus, Vaillant.

NOTE 209.

Simo.—Why do you not immediately give orders for her removal to

our house?
Grecian women, in the situation in which Glycera is represented
to have been, were usually well enough to go abroad in a litter in one
day’s time. This topic is introduced by the poet, in order that Davus
may be spoken of, and delivered from confinement; because his
remaining in prison would have been contrary to the rules of comedy.

NOTE 210.

Simo.—Because he is now carrying on things of great weight, and

which touch him more nearly.
——Quia habet aliud magis ex sese et majus.
 There is a pun in the original, which I have attempted to preserve
in the translation by a circumlocution which I trust on such an
occasion will be deemed allowable. The critics remark, that Terence,
by Simo’s pleasantry, (vide Note 211,) intended to shew that he was
thoroughly reconciled to his son. (Vide Note 92.)

NOTE 211.
Simo.—He is chained.
Pam.—Ah! dear Sir, that was not well done.
Simo.—I am sure I ordered it to be well done.
S. Vinctus est.
P. Pater non rectè vinctus est.
S. Haud ita jussi.
The jest in this sentence turns on the word rectè, which refers to
an Athenian custom of binding criminals’ hands and feet together.
Simo (A. 5. S. 3. p. 86.) orders Dromo to bind Davus in the manner
before mentioned: (atque audin’? quadrupedem constringito.)
Pamphilus says, non rectè vinctus est: rectè has a double meaning,
it signifies rightly, and also straight. Simo pretends to take it in the
latter sense, which makes his son’s speech run thus, He is not
bound straight or upright: to which Simo replies, I ordered he should
not be bound straight, but crooked, or neck and heels. I trust I have
made the force of this pun clear to the unlearned reader: the turn
given it in the English translation is borrowed from Echard.

NOTE 212.
Pam. (to himself.)—Any one would think, perhaps, that I do not
believe this to be true, but I know it is because I wish it so. I am of
opinion, that the lives of the gods are eternal, because their
pleasures are secure and without end.
“Epicurus observed, that the gods could not but be immortal,
since they are exempt from all kinds of evils, cares, and dangers. But
Terence gives another more refined reason, which more forcibly
expresses the joy of Pamphilus; for he affirms that their immortality
springs only from the durability of their pleasures. This passage is
very beautiful. Pamphilus prefaces what he is going to say by the
expression, “Any one would think, perhaps;” this was in a manner
necessary to excuse the freedom which, arising from his joy, makes
him assign another reason for the immortality of the gods than those
discovered by the philosophers, particularly by Epicurus, whose
name was still fresh in the recollection of every person, and whose
doctrines were very generally received and adopted.” Madame
Dacier.

NOTE 213.

Pam.—There is now no impediment to our marriage.

Nec mora ulla est, quin jam uxorem ducam.
Pamphilus does not mean by this expression, that he was not
married before, but that now that he has his father’s consent to his
union, he can ducere uxorem, lead his wife publicly to his own house
with the usual ceremonies. The latter phrase ducere uxorem, to
marry, took its rise from the custom of leading the bride from her
father’s to her husband’s house, in a ceremonial procession. For an
account of the marriages of the Greeks, vide Notes 116, 117, 118.
Marriages, among the Romans, were of three kinds. The first, and
most binding, by which women of rank and consideration were
married, was called confarreatio: when the parties were joined by the
high priest, in the presence of a great number of witnesses; and ate
a cake made of meal and salt. The second kind of marriage was
usus, when the parties lived together for one year. The third kind was
called coemptio or mutual purchase, in which the bride and
bridegroom gave each other a piece of money, and repeated over a
set form of words.

NOTE 214.

Char. (aside.)—This man is dreaming of what he wishes when

awake.
 ——Num ille somniat
Ea, quæ vigilans voluit.
The optative influence, (if I may so call it,) on the visions of the
night, here alluded to by Terence, has been described at length by a
celebrated poet, in verses which charm the ear with their melody,
and which command the approbation of the judgment as a faithful
portraiture of nature. Their author wrote verses, which, in harmony of
measure, excelled those of all the Roman poets, excepting Ovid.
Omnia quæ sensu volvuntur vota diurno,
Pectore sopito, reddit amica quies:
Venator defessa toro cum membra reponit.
Mens tamen ad sylvas, et sua lustra redit.
Judicibus lites, aurige somnia currus,
Vanaque nocturnis meta cavetur equis.
Furto gaudet amans; permutat navita merces;
Et vigil elapsas quærit avarus opes.
Vatem Musarum studium sub nocte silenti
Artibus assuetis solicitare solet.—Claudian.

NOTE 215.
Do you, Davus, go home, and order some of our people hither, to
remove her to our house. Why do you loiter? go, don’t lose a
moment.
Davus.—I am going. You must not expect their coming out: she will
be betrothed within, &c.
The concluding lines of the play from “You must not expect,” &c.,
were not originally spoken by the actor who personated Davus, but
formed a sort of epilogue, spoken by a performer, called Cantor; who
also pronounced the word Plaudite, with which the comedies and
tragedies of the Romans usually terminated. Vide Note 217, also
Quintilian, B. 6. C. 1., and Cicero and Cato. Horace expressly tells
us, that the Cantor said the words, vos plaudite.
“Tu quid ego, et populus mecum desideret audi.
 Si plausoris eges aulæa manentis, et usque
Sessuri, donec Cantor vos plaudite dicat;
Ætatis cujusque notandi sunt tibi mores,
Mobilibusque decor naturis dandus et annis.”
Art of Poet., L. 153.

Attend, whilst I instruct thee how to please

Him whose experience guides thee; and the taste
That rules the present age. If thou wouldst charm
Our listening ears, until the scene be done;
And in our seats detain us till the Cantor
Requests applause; give to each stage of life,
Its attributes: and justly paint the changes,
Wrought by the hand of Time.

NOTE 216.

You must not expect their coming out.

Some editors give nearly twenty lines of dialogue between
Chremes and Charinus respecting the marriage of the latter with
Philumena, but those additional lines are spurious. The critics have
decided that the play should terminate with the winding up of
Pamphilus’s intrigue, and that that of Charinus should be left to the
imagination: as the action must languish, if continued after the
interest felt for the principal characters has subsided. Davus here
addresses the spectators, as does Mysis, in A. 1. S. 4.
Commentators deem this a blemish in the composition of the piece.
These addresses, in ancient comedies, were not, I imagine, made to
the spectators in general, but to those persons who stood on the
stage during the performance, as the chorus, or as musicians.

NOTE 217.

Farewell, and clap your hands.

 “All the ancient copies have the Greek omega, Ω, placed before
the words, ‘clap your hands,’ and before ‘Farewell, and clap your
hands,’ in other plays: ‘which,’ says Eugraphius, ‘are the words of
the prompter, who, at the end of the play, lifted up the curtain, and
said to the audience, ‘Farewell, and clap your hands:’ thus far
Faernus. Leng, at the end of every play, subscribes these words,
Calliopius recensui, and says Calliopius was the prompter; and he
quotes the same words of Eugraphius, which I have here quoted
from Faernus. If Ω stands for any thing more than ‘Finis,’ (as some
imagine to be placed there by transcribers to signify the end,) it may
be designed for the first letter Ωδος, which is the Greek for Cantor:
and Horace, in his art of poetry, says,
Donec cantor vos plaudite dicat.
“Bentley supposes this Cantor to have been Flaccus the
musician, (mentioned in the title,) who, when the play was over,
entreated the favour of the audience: but I should rather think
Calliopius to have been the Cantor, if there was any foundation in
antiquity for his name being at the end of the plays; but the name
seems fictitious to me by the etymology thereof, and it being used in
this place. It is indeed at the end of every play, in all the three
manuscripts in Dr. Mead’s collection except Phormio, which is the
last play in the prosaic copy; and the only reason for Calliopius
recensui not being there, is, doubtless, because the play is
imperfect, some few verses being out at the conclusion; ω precedes
the farewell in one of the doctor’s copies, ο in another, and the
largest copy has neither. What is independent of the action of the
play, as the last two lines are, may be looked upon as an epilogue,
and was probably spoken by the same person, whether player,
prompter, or cantor.”—Cooke.

NOTE 218.

End of the fifth Act.

At the end of a play, the Romans closed their scenes, which,
instead of falling from the roof of the theatre downwards, as among
the moderns, were constructed something similarly to the blinds of a
carriage; so that when the stage was to be exposed to the view of
the spectators, the scene or curtain was let down, and when the
piece was concluded, it was drawn up again. The ancients originally
performed their plays in the open air, with no scenery but that
furnished by nature. As they became more refined, they erected
theatres, and introduced scenes, which they divided into three kinds:
1. tragic, 2. comic, 3. pastoral. Some very valuable information on
this subject may be gathered from M. Perrault’s Notes on Vitruvius,
who has described the various sorts of ancient scenes. Ovid, in the
following verses, describes the original simplicity of the Roman
dramatic entertainments:
“Tunc neque marmoreo pendebant vela theatro,
Nec fuerant liquido pulpita rubra croco.
Illic quas tulerant nemorosa palatia frondes
Simpliciter positæ Scena sine arte fuit.”

FINIS.

LONDON:
Printed by W. Clowes, Northumberland-court.
 Transcriber’s Note:
Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent
hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless
indicated below. Obsolete and alternative spellings were left
unchanged.
Note 108 has two footnotes that were lettered sequentially and
were moved to the end of the Note. Missing anchor was added to
Note 50. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside down,
reverse order, or partially printed letters and punctuation, were
corrected. Final stops missing at the end of sentences and
abbreviations were added. Duplicate letters at line endings or page
breaks were removed. Punctuation and accent marks were
normalized.
The following items were changed:

“his” to “this”
“praisng” changed to “praising”
“thing” added to text where not legible in the original, Note 114
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TERENCE'S
ANDRIAN, A COMEDY, IN FIVE ACTS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using
the method you already use to calculate your applicable
taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or
are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.
Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
 address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return
or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical
medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other
copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund

of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a
defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you
within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and